1. Field of the Disclosure
The present disclosure is directed to equipment for testing integrated circuits and semiconductors.
2. Description of the Related Art
As microcircuits continually evolve to be smaller and more complex, the test equipment that tests the microcircuits also evolves. There is an ongoing effort to improve microcircuit test equipment, with improvements leading to an increase in reliability, an increase in throughput, and/or a decrease in expense.
Mounting a defective microcircuit on a circuit board is relatively costly. Installation usually involves soldering the microcircuit onto the circuit board. Once mounted on a circuit board, removing a microcircuit is problematic because the very act of melting the solder for a second time ruins the circuit board. Thus, if the microcircuit is defective, the circuit board itself is probably ruined as well, meaning that the entire value added to the circuit board at that point is lost. For all these reasons, a microcircuit is usually tested before installation on a circuit board.
Each microcircuit must be tested in a way that identifies all defective devices, but yet does not improperly identify good devices as defective. Either kind of error, if frequent, adds substantial overall cost to the circuit board manufacturing process, and can add retest costs for devices improperly identified as defective devices.
Microcircuit test equipment itself is quite complex. First of all, the test equipment must make accurate and low resistance temporary and non-destructive electrical contact with each of the closely spaced microcircuit contacts. Because of the small size of microcircuit contacts and the spacings between them, even small errors in making the contact will result in incorrect connections. Connections to the microcircuit that are misaligned or otherwise incorrect will cause the test equipment to identify the device under test (DUT) as defective, even though the reason for the failure is the defective electrical connection between the test equipment and the DUT rather than defects in the DUT itself.
A further problem in microcircuit test equipment arises in automated testing. Testing equipment may test 100 devices a minute, or even more. The sheer number of tests cause wear on the tester contacts making electrical connections to the microcircuit terminals during testing. This wear dislodges conductive debris from both the tester contacts and the DUT terminals that contaminates the testing equipment and the DUTs themselves.
The debris eventually results in poor electrical connections during testing and false indications that the DUT is defective. The debris adhering to the microcircuits may result in faulty assembly unless the debris is removed from the microcircuits. Removing debris adds cost and introduces another source of defects in the microcircuits themselves.
Test equipment in current use has an array of test contacts that mimic the pattern of the microcircuit terminal array. The array of test contacts is supported in a structure that precisely maintains the alignment of the contacts relative to each other. An alignment template or board aligns the microcircuit itself with the test contacts. The test contacts and the alignment board are mounted on a load board having conductive pads that make electrical connection to the test contacts. The load board pads are connected to circuit paths that carry the signals and power between the test equipment electronics and the test contacts.
For the electrical tests, it is desired to form a temporary electrical connection between each terminal on the device under test and a corresponding electrical pad on a load board. In general, it is impractical to solder and remove each electrical terminal on the microcircuit being contacted by a corresponding electrical probe on the testbed. Instead of soldering and removing each terminal, the tester may employ a series of electrically conductive pins arranged in a pattern that corresponds to both the terminals on the device under test and the electrical pads on the load board. When the device under test is forced into contact with the tester, the pins complete the circuits between respective device under test contacts and corresponding load board pads. After testing, when the device under test is released, the terminals separate from the pins and the circuits are broken.
Other considerations exist as well. The test contacts must make connection between the DUT and a load board, the board which carries the test signals to and from the contact pins. A common type of test pin is known as the spring loaded test pin or POGO pin, as it resembles a pogo stick toy. An example of such a pin arrangement is shown in US publication US 2011/0102009 to Lee. It illustrates the axial shaft alignment of the pad to be contacted on the DUT, the pogo pin and the pad on load board. By virtue of the fact that the pogo pin follows a linear axial path, makes the relationship between pads on the load board and on the DUT very simple.
Pogo pins have however many technical deficiencies, such as limitations in frequency response, current carrying capabilities, resistance, noise and high failure rates.
A solution has long been needed to provide pins with improved capabilities but which can be retrofitted to load boards with preexisting pad layouts to avoid the needs to replace expensive load boards to accommodate superior pin designs such as pins disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,338,293 to Gilk and U.S. Pat. No. 7,639,026 to Shell. An alternative structure with a single part pin hinged to a sidewall is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 7,918,669 to Tiengtum.
The present disclosure is directed to improvements to these pins and structures surrounding them to solve this and other problems.